Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Brown v. Jojo-Ab, Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 13, 1991No. Docket 117405Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurphy, P.J.

I concur in the majority’s resolution of the first two issues raised by plaintiff in this appeal. However, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority regarding the effect of the notice provision set forth in MCL 436.22(5); MSA 18.993(5).

Our Supreme Court has held that such statutory notice provisions are not unconstitutional per se. Carver v McKernan, 390 Mich 96, 99-100; 211 NW2d 24 (1973). Nevertheless, the Court has also clearly expressed its disapproval of this type of requirement:

*213At the outset, we acknowledge frankly that statutes which limit access to the courts…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Carver v. McKernanMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Hobbs v. Department of State HighwaysMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Hussey v. City of Muskegon HeightsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. Henderson v. BironMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Hanger v. State Highway DepartmentMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API